New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-06-23
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
THE cEoRgE PHILOSOPHY.

THE GEORGE PHILOSOPHY.
GRADE ORGANIZATIONS IN POLITICS. or. Federal
lam in Cities. BY J. BLKEcKER MILLER New-York;
oxford Pub. Co PIP Zle.
Nina easays or lectures read by Mr.. Miller before
xarou, societies and org anizatons have been pub
lished by him under the above title Ihey are IN
tended, ss Mr.. Miller says it, to develop 'ne ao"
that city should be political unit In IT'S reia'ons
10 the State and that its inhabitants should DO
"a srpress their polt,cal uuhampered by
division into geographical election distrc's ny
means the trade, business and professionals =,
tons will gradually and psaceably come 10 'aAe
0pe mart in our public affairs. thereby striking at inc
root ot our main political and economical evils" inc
author has made careful study OF these subjects anu
hi. views even where the reader disagrees with him.
are always interesting.
The portion of this publication that especially calls
for comment is that which includes q criticism upon
the land theories OF Henry George These pages were
written during the municipal campaign oil ast autumn
and display stronger evidences OF partisan anu pun.
cal feeling than of philosophical disputauon. oouo VI
the argument and especially some oil the iiiustrao'
are affective in showing the injustice and hardship
that would result from the adoption OF Mr. ueorges
scheme of land taxation. The cases. tor lnstance Oh
those landowners whose titles are dcrived direc'y
from the State city governments for very 'a,uauo
considerations are pointed out. How then, MI. Mi'er
asks. can the Government. or to use Mr. ueo,seo
favorte sync nyme, tho people, af:er granting t,e W
these purchasers, guaranteeing TO them aao 'nei,
heirs and assigns forever" peaceabe possession anu
receiving full value therefor. subsequently oopr'e
them OF those possessions without compensation upon
the ground that is the interest OF the grantors
the people-so to dol That 10 the severest problem
chat Mr. Miller puts to the author OF Progress ana
Poverty" No.,
C,sorge,s philosophy. Mr. Miller, like many other
critic. If hs new school OF political economy, seems
almost entirely to have overlooked or at all events
disreg arded. 1t is not so much MT Heorges theory
that tho title OF land exclusive OF improvements,
ha in
whole .opls the communty-as 1t is his metn0d o,
deriving the present owners OF their legally Obtained
title and, without compensation to them, converting
it into public property, that shocks the sense Oh
honesty and justice in the MINDS Oh thinkhg Aaiei'
cans Mr. Georges arguments may be met ana re-
futed upon his own grounds. Let his definition OF
"propery be accepted conne 1t to the proouot OF
human labo" 1t is OF course true that man olu eot
maze the laud Nor will Mr.. Mier's suggestion that
most land requires, human labor upon it before IL can
be pat into condition TOR use puzzle Mr.. George
greatly to answer; for he would say that he only
proposes to tax .he land itself at its ground rentai
excl lsiye OF these we'll as all other improve
ments." But consider the tchure by which prooaoly
more than 90 per of tho land ia New-York state
for instance is held. John Smith did not make the
thirty acre. of Long Island garden land which he
Owns in fee simple under the laws OF this state
neither was il fashioned by human hands. But nc
did toll and labor and deny himselt and family ior
many years before he had saved enough from the
earnings of his work pay the price he did Tor tha
piece of ground. That piece was the product OF
human labor and this purchaser has merely ex-
chan ced the product of his labor for the ownership OF
the soil Aud when as Mr.. George proposes, the pub
lie consces that prof. ery, as he prefers to put It,
confscates the rent" is it not as certainly roobing
the owner of what Is the product of his labor as II 1t
had taken the hardearned gold with which he pur-
chased those fields Neither the gold nor the land
was made by human labor but the legal possession OF
each is the representative Of the products OF labor
Admit that 1t might be as we'll for this purchaser
when ready to invst the land that he should rent
1t from the State rather than pay its full market value
once tor all But he has paid this price usder guar
antees of the constitution and laws that he and his
shall peacsabIy hold it forever. And under what
reasonable pretence can he now be deprived OF his
tito W without compensation This is a question which
Mr. George has nowhere in his works satisfactorily
answered. He has sought to put the ownership OF
land INTO a forced aud exlrsvagant analogy with the
ownership OF human slaves But there is neither
reason nor common seuse In that. Slavery in this
country continued to exist in the face OF the general
sentiment of the civilized world that it was wicked
evil. The real estate on the contrary, has
bee yne the possessor of land under the prevailing
sentiment of Chrstendom that such IN acquisition Is
right and commeDdable. If bis purchase and owner
sh of land wrong to society, it Is, unlike the
ownership of slaves. unconscious wrong And
until the principles that prompted the atng OF
the Federal Constitution and the constitutions OF the
several States shall have been forgotten Mr. 5eorge
and his followers can never persuade the thinking
people of this country that the needs OF society eau
Justify such robbery OF the land owner